Schmidtfire

Im pretty sure both P and S variants has the SPO-1 "Sirena 2" RWR...

"Fully released" does not mean it's fully functional. It is just not early access :megalol: In the meantime, Im pulling the trigger on MiG-19P. Should be a lot of fun to zip around in while I wait for the Mirage overhaul.

You can still mod/attach the missiles to another airframe and have a go ;) I have tried all the new PL heaters on the F-5E and also the active radar missile on the Su-27. Quite fun actually!

Well. The odds are not in your favour. They have better avionics and better missiles and GCI so you can’t hide... Sounds like a fail, tws or no tws. I also want to have all those great updates, but lets leave the development to the devs who actually knows the code and how the different systems are tied together.

I do play both PvP and PvE. Since 2014. But usually not on Blueflag. What that now has to do with anything? Look. Flying M2000C I wait until the target is really close and usually go right into a hardlock. M2000C is best used in-close and personal with Super530D. MagicII, I only carry cause they sort of look cool and the D2M sensor. Working TWS would be nice, but Im not loosing any fights because of it. And I don't really care about a highscore anyway. There are other flight games or upcoming MAC to cover that "competitive" game stuff. I do understand your opinion. But if Razbam thinks it is better to update the basics first like HUD/PCA im fine with it. They know development better than us. TWS and overhaul of radar will be great, but one step at the time. Hornet on the other hand is in desperate need of TWS for IFF and Aim-120 launch and still nothing there... just to put things in perspective. It could be worse :music_whistling: And I don't agree on your assesment. I think PvE will at least be as big if not bigger than PvP. MAC will be where PvP shines.

I would not say that TWS is more important than HUD/PCA. First the basics, then the radar. I do understand that choice.

M2000C mid-life overhaul is in progress, including radar. (based on AdA feedback) Dev. has stated that this bug will be crushed during the radar overhaul. It will be fixed. Probably within a few months as HUD/PCA updates are scheduled first.

Correct. But R-3S is still a very formidable weapon in DCS, I get the feeling that it's seeker and guidance is too good for early 1960's. Compared to later gen like R-13M and R-13M1 it should be more crude. Anyways, difficult to judge without more data and such.

As a sidenote. Air-Air rockets scored a few victories over Vietnam. Vietnamese used UB-16 pods with S-5 rockets. When the R-3 was introduced some pilots were skeptical about it and still used the UB-16 pods. Do we get S-5 rockets with different warheads? Or are they all HE?

Im not entirely sure but I think it was brought up. It is more of a "Launch Authorized" sound on MiG21bis and not seeker head itself. I think the MiG29 IRL also has a launch tone for R-27 semi active missiles.

That is correct. from what I have noted, GAR-8 in DCS does not pull high G off the rails. At launch it will also take a short time until it start to turn/correct it’s heading. It is also less sensitive to heat. R-3S behaves more like the Aim-9P in comparison (wich can be compared to R-13M1) quite smooth tracking of target and maintains lock much better. I wouldn't be surprised if the R-3S should be closer to the GAR-8 performance. And current R-3R is quite correct due to different guidance. But without more data it is just speculation. It’s hard to figure wich one is the most realistic. But I think BST did a good job on the GAR-8. Another missile we can compare R-3S to would be Viggen’s Rb-24. It is supposed to be a license produced Aim-9B but from what I remember it is sort of a mix between R-3S/GAR-8 performance in DCS.

One thing I have noted R-3S leads/follows the target way better than the Aim-9B/Gar-8 in DCS. If that is true IRL I don't know. It is also a bit easier to achieve lock with. Don't know about the sinous movement at altitudes, but I think it was more common on older gen missiles. Bonus. Here is a live launch of R-3R If the host is translated correctly, he says that R-3R has longer range than R-3S. Some other sources states that the R-3R also has longer range than R-3S, but I don't know if this is true or not. But I guess that the best place for this kind of questions are on the russian side of these forums as they often have more intel on the soviet missile family.

Would be cool if they manage to implement the characteristic sidewinder "snake movement" seen in this video. Thats why they call it a sidewinder :)

Great update!

Vietnam map for me! Also a bush-war type map in Africa would be nice. Plenty of opportunity for both east and west aircraft.

Making ASL sway in the right direction would be a good start. Should be quite easy to implement. Maybe also make it’s movement a bit slower and less sensitive? Since CCIP also has it’s share of issues, I would not trust that Razbam got the ASL correct the first time. It clearly needs work, just hope that they fix it as bombing is one of the main functions of the Harrier. I can deal with broken Sidearms, no hotspot detection, unfinished DMT etc. But not something as basic as proper symbology during CCIP/CCRP bombruns.

Well... it is at least a combination. Or how the Harrier interacts with payload. Still does not explain why the Harrier flips like a pancake when I drop a single bomb off one wing. It’s way exaggerated. Edit: Now proved wrong/inaccurate in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225371

I agree, they perform really well.

From what I know BST had crazy good access to a MiG-15bis. Also it is a classic icon and probably an aircraft close to heart for many Eastern Europeans. It is clearly a labour of love and the finest details, like blown lamps by the UV Rheostat. I have heard some rumors that they might sort of revisit the MiG-15bis module and develop it further to a MiG-17... I did not know about the m65 1000 lb bombs or the other missing variants. Maybe even some Matra 68mm rocket pods? I agree that they could have given more info about the aircraft that the module is based on. Besides I love behind the scenes stuff, It would be really neat to get some history behind it. Was it modified in field? Did it see any service? Did it see any combat? Where was it stationed? etc. Is it possible that it was a testbed of some sorts and therefore never got the F40 wing but all the other goodies?

FYI. I did several posts with pictures on that windscreen issue. Probably a thread or two aswell. To my knowledge this Franken Sabre is based on a real life airframe? Maybe a bit obscure and uncommon... If you say it is a total fantasy aircraft, that has 0% chance of being real - like a modded airframe in a warehouse somewhere, then I understand your frustration. For me it is plausible. Maybe if BST had this info during development, they would have made different choices and sprung towards something a bit more common. Still BST (now ED) will probably not touch the Sabre again. It’s been released for some time now. That windshield thing took years to fix. Gunsight / guns are still a bit whacky and where is my tactical nuke for the labs system?

All I was trying to convey is no matter how seriously we take this "sim". There will always be compromises. Sometimes it is accuracy of the module itself, sometimes it's the map, objects, AI...

But it does matter to compare. The principles for AUTO bomb steering line is the same. Why would the USMC make such drastic changes to make it more difficult for the pilot? It does not take much effort to figure out that it does not work properly in DCS :) Hope that someone can dig up a IRL HUD video from a CCRP drop, that will settle this once and for all.

@mvsgas Look at the excellent screenshots. Now compare in-game. Fly Av-8B, fly A-10C, fly F/A-18C. The AUTO bomb steering line on the Harrier does not work as supposed to. Even if you manage to hit targets with that, cudos to you. But it is not how the system is supposed to work. I have made a lot of CCRP releases in DCS and It took me about 10sec to realize that something is off. Shagrat is correct.

In that case you probably should not be flying F-86F over Caucasus at all... I do understand that you want more variants, but It is kind of pointless unless you have a historical map complete with AI and objects. Why Belsimtek choose this "Franken Sabre", we don't know. But they did and simulated that version to thier fullest ability. Aircrafts around the world are modified. I say it will still fall under plausible, even if it is a rare version. The "make believe" of putting that module into an interesting context either fictional or simulated is up to us. Look at it this way. DCS is our sandbox and we have different toys. Right now they are a F-86F and a MiG-15bis. If we want to play a 1950/60/70 scenario we have to use those assets and mix and match payload and liveries to make something that we feel are close enough. Same with every module released, as there are always some asset missing for a correct historical representation of a given scenario or conflict. Id' love another version (like the CAC one), but Im quite sure it won't happen. At least not soon anyways.

Same for us. We are five buddys/players and we all crash to desktop since 2.5.4 Different missions and servers, also in SP. Did a flight tonight and it was crash to desktop on two occasions. I love 2.5.4, but it is really unstable now compared to a few versions back. Will try to get some logs going. So far. It happens more often when switching from cockpit/F10 map. Hope that ED are aware of this situation, as 100% of our little flight group are affected by it.